Great Northern Fleet - 379s introduction

[SteveU821]

Nothing wrong with them but I can’t see the dft standing the cost of training @250 Drivers

They’re also non-DOO units making use of these highly unlikely.

 

[whoosh]

Indeed, it might be noted that slack in the 700 and 717 fleet could in theory be used to reduce the need for 387s, and also that there is a possibility that the 6 c2c units could be outside this tender, given they have more recently been taken on.

That way, it is somewhat easier to see how 21 - 30 units reconciles to the current 387101-387129 fleet.

717s are supposedly undergoing certification from 85mph to 100mph. Although it all seems to have gone quiet, there have been test runs done for this, with the latest I'd heard being the performance of windscreen wiper being the focus.

As an aside, on the subject of service reductions, the inner suburban service is reduced compared to pre-COVID, but there are people being left behind, unable to board, on morning peak trains on the Hertford branch.

Being left behind is more than 'overcrowding'. So, the DfT not caring about overcrowding is happening now already on the GN.

 

[Snow1964]

Indeed, it might be noted that slack in the 700 and 717 fleet could in theory be used to reduce the need for 387s, and also that there is a possibility that the 6 c2c units could be outside this tender, given they have more recently been taken on.

That way, it is somewhat easier to see how 21 - 30 units reconciles to the current 387101-387129 fleet.

Reading all the above posts, it is clearly to put pressure on Lease Co (Porterbrook?) of existing 387s for competitive renewal price.

What I haven't been able to work out is if the 387s have to be offered, or if LeaseCo could say your not having them below £X, and if you push us we will park them in storage instead. Might not be commercially bonkers, because if we get change of Government and suddenly big demand for electric units (with new ones 3 years away) might be able to get some good rates elsewhere, but it is a gambol.

Appears other units 379s, 350/2 etc would need a driver type conversion and ECTS fitment.

Seems to be some debate about if a non-compliant bid (something like spare Anglia 720s) would be acceptable, there seems to be a view that if price was low enough then possibly.

Is this a fair summary?

 

[Energy]

Reading all the above posts, it is clearly to put pressure on Lease Co (Porterbrook?) of existing 387s for competitive renewal price.

I doubt it. In the National Rail Contract for TSGN the leases on both GN and GX 387s expire in 2028.


TSGN move around the 387s depending on demand, I'd expect some to move south after this tender.

 

[D365]

Appears other units 379s, 350/2 etc would need a driver type conversion and ECTS fitment.

And I doubt that Porterbrook would make their ETCS installation designs available to Akiem!

 

[fgwrich]

And I doubt that Porterbrook would make their ETCS installation designs available to Akiem!

It can and does happen for the right amount of money; FGW for example had a number of Angel owned TSDs converted using the Porterbrook designed toilet (42356 being one) while the 57/3s were a loco owned by Porterbrook but used an Angel Trains owned Deller Coupling drophead.

 

[Brubulus]

Reading all the above posts, it is clearly to put pressure on Lease Co (Porterbrook?) of existing 387s for competitive renewal price.

Porterbrook could always offer the 350/2s cheaper (as they're older trains with a more limited future)

What I haven't been able to work out is if the 387s have to be offered, or if LeaseCo could say your not having them below £X, and if you push us we will park them in storage instead. Might not be commercially bonkers, because if we get change of Government and suddenly big demand for electric units (with new ones 3 years away) might be able to get some good rates elsewhere, but it is a gambol.

Appears other units 379s, 350/2 etc would need a driver type conversion and ECTS fitment.

Seems to be some debate about if a non-compliant bid (something like spare Anglia 720s) would be acceptable, there seems to be a view that if price was low enough then possibly.

Given they're new, it depends if GA will be allowed to take them on, if they aren't they'll be up for peanuts so could very well end up on GN. They're pretty similar to the 387s so I don't think driver training would need to be anywhere as expensive as the 350/2s but a similar amount to the 379s. ETCS fitment would be hardest on the 350s and easiest on the 387s and the 720s. I don't think it's likely the 379s will come back.

 

[43096]

And I doubt that Porterbrook would make their ETCS installation designs available to Akiem!

As ETCS fit is funded by the installation programme (i.e. NR) as it is a network change, they probably have to.

 

[D365]

ETCS fitment would be hardest on the 350s and easiest on the 387s and the 720s. I don't think it's likely the 379s will come back.

The Class 3x0 Desiros are in line for fitment at some point, but as it stands, this depends on West Coast ETCS timelines.

 

[bramling]

Indeed, it might be noted that slack in the 700 and 717 fleet could in theory be used to reduce the need for 387s, and also that there is a possibility that the 6 c2c units could be outside this tender, given they have more recently been taken on.

That way, it is somewhat easier to see how 21 - 30 units reconciles to the current 387101-387129 fleet.

The May timetable certainly saves units by interworking the 1T and 2C/2R services, which previously had very long turnarounds at King’s Cross. With this being all 8-car through the day there’s a fair saving there, potentially four or so diagrams just on that.

It wouldn’t surprise me to find the 717s get used on some longer distance work in the future. That fleet is very under employed at the moment, though presumably at some point where will have to be some uplift in the Moorgate peak service, especially on the Hertford line.

 

[Energy]

And I doubt that Porterbrook would make their ETCS installation designs available to Akiem!

Its under the National Joint Rosco Program, once the first GN 387 has it approved it can be fitted to any electrostar regardless of ROSCO.

 

[43102EMR]

Porterbrook could always offer the 350/2s cheaper (as they're older trains with a more limited future)

Doesn’t that also eliminate the chance for them to be used with GN? Even if the 379s are used, they’re still members of the Electrostar family at the end of the day, which is more homogeneous/in common with much of GTR’s existing fleet (minus the lack of third rail capability).

 

[Energy]

Doesn’t that also eliminate the chance for them to be used with GN? Even if the 379s are used, they’re still members of the Electrostar family at the end of the day, which is more homogeneous/in common with much of GTR’s existing fleet (minus the lack of third rail capability).

The tender only specifies 25kv. The 387s get moved between north and south by TSGN depending on demand so some would get moved south should the tender go ahead.

 

[D365]

Its under the National Joint Rosco Program, once the first GN 387 has it approved it can be fitted to any electrostar regardless of ROSCO.

Good point.

 

[Snow1964]

The tender only specifies 25kv. The 387s get moved between north and south by TSGN depending on demand so some would get moved south should the tender go ahead.

Further on tender says

•capable of operating under AC only or AC/DC dual voltage

 

[43074]

The only interesting thing about it is where in that 21-30 scale allowed in the tender the needle falls. It’ll be 21-30 of the existing 387s GN already operate, and the axe of cuts will take care of the “that isn’t enough” problem.

No it won't - as the leases on those don't expire until June 2028, whereas the only reason GWR put a tender out was the lease expiry was April 2023, which aligned with a previous franchise end date hence why the 769s went off lease at that point too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2023 ==

Indeed, it might be noted that slack in the 700 and 717 fleet could in theory be used to reduce the need for 387s, and also that there is a possibility that the 6 c2c units could be outside this tender, given they have more recently been taken on.

"Slack" in the 700 fleet is why they run to Kings Lynn from May. At least some of the units this tender is for will be used to remove instances of that.

 

[physics34]

Stop this idiocy of leasing. Take ownership of the rolling stock and this penpushing stuff need not happen

 

[bramling]

No it won't - as the leases on those don't expire until June 2028, whereas the only reason GWR put a tender out was the lease expiry was April 2023, which aligned with a previous franchise end date hence why the 769s went off lease at that point too.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Apr 2023 ==


"Slack" in the 700 fleet is why they run to Kings Lynn from May. At least some of the units this tender is for will be used to remove instances of that.

This is interesting in itself, as does that imply that the whole GN outer suburban non-core operation is going to become 387s in time? As well as Kings Lynn, 700s are going to appear on some of the peak Peterborough services as well from May.

If the plan is to remove this in time, then what are the spare 700s going to do? Removal of 700s from King’s Cross services saves no fewer than 8x 700/0 compared to 2018, which is quite a lot. What else could be afoot here?

I can’t quite see where this is all heading.

 

[Meerkat]

Stop this idiocy of leasing. Take ownership of the rolling stock and this penpushing stuff need not happen

Just imagine how much would have been withdrawn/scrapped by the DfT if it wasn’t on lease!

 

[Snow1964]

I doubt it. In the National Rail Contract for TSGN the leases on both GN and GX 387s expire in 2028.
View attachment 134129

TSGN move around the 387s depending on demand, I'd expect some to move south after this tender.

That contract has the 717s leases expiring 30th September 2023 (in 5 months time), leased from Rock Rail Holdings Moorgate plc

I am guessing they are being extended (and RRHMplc accounts will be filed in next few weeks which might give details). But I do wonder if they will keep all 25 x 6car trains, or potentially return a few. What level of service is needed nowadays for Moorgate.

Could potentially some Moorgate services be shortened at the country end and the EMUs in the tender take over at some mid suburban stations instead of stoppers to Moorgate.

My thinking (and I could be going off at a tangent) is the 717s could be very expensive leases and cutting the quantity of 717s needed by switching some stations to be served by other fleets might be cheaper.

 

[Energy]

Could potentially some Moorgate services be shortened at the country end and the EMUs in the tender take over at some mid suburban stations instead of stoppers to Moorgate.

My thinking (and I could be going off at a tangent) is the 717s could be very expensive leases and cutting the quantity of 717s needed by switching some stations to be served by other fleets might be cheaper.

Unlikely, the provision for tender specifies 4 car EMUs with the ability to work in 3. The 717s were ordered in the era of cheap leasing so I doubt they are that expensive, its not in Rock Rail's interest to only lease 90% of the units as the others wouldn't be much use to other operators as such a tiny fleet.

 

[Mikey C]

This is interesting in itself, as does that imply that the whole GN outer suburban non-core operation is going to become 387s in time? As well as Kings Lynn, 700s are going to appear on some of the peak Peterborough services as well from May.

If the plan is to remove this in time, then what are the spare 700s going to do? Removal of 700s from King’s Cross services saves no fewer than 8x 700/0 compared to 2018, which is quite a lot. What else could be afoot here?

I can’t quite see where this is all heading.

Could they go south of the river to operate some "Southern" services?

 

[Snow1964]

Unlikely, the provision for tender specifies 4 car EMUs with the ability to work in 3. The 717s were ordered in the era of cheap leasing so I doubt they are that expensive, its not in Rock Rail's interest to only lease 90% of the units as the others wouldn't be much use to other operators as such a tiny fleet.

Surely if the lease ends on 717s in September, then the lease Co is free to name their price for any subsequent period. There might be a commercial clause that limits price rises, but presumably if operator doesn't like the new price, it's their problem to find alternative trains. But you do have a point they could make it take all 25 as condition of leasing them.

 

[Doomotron]

Stop this idiocy of leasing. Take ownership of the rolling stock and this penpushing stuff need not happen

I can't imagine GTR's budget extends to buying their entire fleet from ROSCOs...

 

[JonathanH]

Could they go south of the river to operate some "Southern" services?

GTR regards the 387s as a flexible fleet that can operate north or south of the river as demand dictates. There is however no sign that they are seeking to increase their "Southern" fleet.

 

[bramling]

Surely if the lease ends on 717s in September, then the lease Co is free to name their price for any subsequent period. There might be a commercial clause that limits price rises, by presumably if operator doesn't like the new price, it's their problem to find alternative trains. But you do have a point they could make it take all 25 as condition of leasing them.

Finding alternative trains to run to Moorgate won’t necessarily be easy, due to the requirement for evacuation through the front end. Also the maximum platform length is 6-cars and that includes Moorgate so no scope for SDO. It’s essentially 717 or nothing, unless anyone fancies repurposing the Southern 313s!

In any case, allegedly people are already being left behind on some Moorgate services, especially on the Hertford side. In the long term it is likely there will need to be an uplift in services there.

 

[jon0844]

They really need to be seeking to run to Moorgate 4tph all day, or at the very least 3tph off peak, to give the turn up and go service that was always advertised and would transform services (with the resulting 6 or 8tph from Alexandra Palace south).

 

[MikeWM]

"Slack" in the 700 fleet is why they run to Kings Lynn from May.

I'm sure the Kings Lynn commuters will be delighted to spend almost 2 hours each way on a train with rock-hard seats and no plug sockets and often no tables or wifi. Not. (And people wonder why commuters aren't flocking back to the railway?!)

I'm surprised FLUA (Fen Line Users Association) haven't raised a fuss about that, though they've been rather quiet recently.

 

[bramling]

I'm sure the Kings Lynn commuters will be delighted to spend almost 2 hours each way on a train with rock-hard seats and no plug sockets and often no tables or wifi. Not. (And people wonder why commuters aren't flocking back to the railway?!)

I'm surprised FLUA (Fen Line Users Association) haven't raised a fuss about that, though they've been rather quiet recently.

Do they actually know? AFAIK this hasn’t been publicised by GTR.

700s have been moderately common to Ely at various times, but much rarer to Kings Lynn. Most peak-hour commuters will manage to swerve them as anything which runs as a 12 south of Cambridge will be 387s.

The GN is now very messy compared to the 2018-2020 period, when at least everything was quite neat and tidy.

 

[Energy]

Surely if the lease ends on 717s in September, then the lease Co is free to name their price for any subsequent period. There might be a commercial clause that limits price rises, by presumably if operator doesn't like the new price, it's their problem to find alternative trains. But you do have a point they could make it take all 25 as condition of leasing them.

The ROSCO can name their price, the customer can debate that price. You wouldn't need a "take all 25" clause, the number of carriages is specified in the lease.